Kings vs. Canucks Playoff Thoughts, Tidbits & Musings

When you think about how significant Anze Kopitar, Dustin Brown and Jonathan Quick have been to the L.A. Kings’ success, remember that they were drafted by the man whose name and number hangs at Staples Center – Dave Taylor.

Quick was drafted in 2005, 3rd round, 72nd overall. What a steal. That is the same draft we got Anze Kopitar in the first round (yay) and Dany Roussin & T.J. Fast in the second round (boo). Coincidentally, number 72 that draft was Richard Clune who was picked by the Dallas Stars.

I wanted Vancouver. Surly didn’t think we matched up well against them. He wanted us to play St. Louis. Teehee.

Don’t be too concerned about the fact we were outplayed last night and Jonathan Quick stole one. In nearly every Cup run, the winning team’s goalie will steal a game….sometimes a series.

Speaking of Quick, his critics sure are quiet now days.

The game three victory was Terry Murray hockey and Murray should get credit, as we have often given him, for the defensive structure he established here. Clearly, it has stuck because, in adversity, the players were able to fall back on it. Now, let’s get back to balance.

Jeff Carter is playing injured. He looks to favor his left side. I just hope he gets his legs back because he is a critical part of our offensive success.

I don’t recall which powerplay it was last night but we seemed to finally get away from the high-low default. Please, let’s infuse some creativity back into the man advantage. Special teams and goaltending – the difference between winning and not.

Staying on the powerplay, it’s not just about goals. That is the ultimate goal but the man advantage must also build momentum. Quality scoring chances do that. Powerplays that struggle to gain the blue line and sustain pressure do the opposite.

How many of you would be disappointed if we don’t sweep? How many of you could give a damn so long as we win the series in less than 7? How many of you lost 3 pounds and added 12 gray hairs in game 3?

53 replies

I still worry that if Vancouver steals Game 4, they’ll win Game 5, and the Kings will have to win Game 6 or risk an almost impossible to win Game 7. But, in reality, I honestly can’t see it happening. Yes, the Kings were outplayed last night, and the Canucks have looked better as the series as progressed, but I think it comes down to motivation. Vigneault has a hell of a decision for Game 4 in net. I feel like he has to play Schneider, as a switch back to Luongo would show a complete lack of faith in everyone, but who knows. Schneider wasn’t tested last night until the third, and he still played well. Their finishing is the problem, as they just can’t beat Quick right now.

Game 4 has some scoring, but Voynov gets an OT winner, a la Adam Deadmarsh, but from the point on a power play early the first OT, after Lapierre gets his fifth trip to the box for roughing.

… He was going to keep his job even if the Kings missed the playoffs. In fact, in mid-season Lombardi spoke as if he was more concerned with the Penner/Stoll payroll coming off of his books than he was about actually getting into the postseason.

I thought he would be a goner if they didn’t make the playoffs. I can’t think that AEG (stingy bastards) would have liked the idea of using so much cap space and not getting some playoff games out of the money spent.

As long as Quick just sets the puck up behind the net and doesn’t try to pass it, we are fine. Please somebody tell my why he gets to it and stops, looking like a squirrel in the road waiting to get run over, while our defensemen also must stop and wait. By the time a pass or exchange happens, the forechecker is closer and has an angle on our motionless victim.

Also, I think the late changeover from the basketball floor made the ice warm and slow last game, our guys and Vancouver all looked like they had sandpaper for skates. Wednesday is gonna be great, probalby more up-tempo, so if the Kings can resume carrying the puck out of their own zone instead of passing it into pressure, or just flipping it out to center, then they can establish the subsequent forecheck pressure that wins games for us.

A faster game but with more possession, and those synchronized swimming assholes can breast-stroke their way home winless.

This franchise really could use a sweep, which is something that over the years so many great elite teams accomplished in runs towards the cup. It is really not critical that they sweep, but, why not!

Personally, I also intensely want to see Carter gets some great opportunities to snipe in some goals, or alternatively in anyway he can do so. So far, he appears not to be in position for those cherry picking shots. If his line mates or D-men can concentrate and feed him, maybe he can be loose and zip in a couple of goals. The guy has the talent and experience to really make a difference.

Slava has shown great poise in carrying pucks up ice and feeding into the O-zone. To have these young guys go out and not screw up is really promising for their careers and future, as they gain confidence and experience and prove they can in fact seriously compete and contribute.

Something very unique is going on with the team. The guys are very modest and humble and super professional with their work ethic. They are having fun. They are showing really no fear. They are showing bonding and trust with each other. They are bending but not breaking, with determined counter-attacks when they can gain control of the puck.

I agree that the PP could be decisive in the next game. The Cansucks are going to take chances and risks, since at this stage, they have their backs to the wall. They are going to play intense checking and body and stick work. In the last game, the Cansucks were doing the PK with close in pressure on the puck possessor, cutting off time and space. Somehow, I would imagine the Kings are studying videos and planning on how to be faster and more rotating in the puck movement to find some shooting lanes swiftly. One tactic to counter the PK pressure by the Cansucks, is to not give them any time or space, where the shots come in quicker.

I really also like the fact that according to some King player statements, the team as a whole knows that they have to play even better and neutralize some of the puck control and attacks and passing activity being pushed by the Cansucks. If the Kings can actually pull all of that off, stepping up their own game, that sweep win is in the cards and how sweet that would be for us all.

“Don’t be too concerned about the fact we were outplayed last night and Jonathan Quick stole one.”

… The Kings weren’t outplayed. They had more scoring chances than the Canucks did, despite the huge shot disparity.

Quick didn’t steal the game. He gets full credit for the shutout but the Canucks were usually one and done with their shots because the Kings were clearing rebounds away consistently. Just because it’s a low scoring game doesn’t mean the winning goalie stole it. Quick’s best game was game 2.

Quick gobbled up rebounds and redirected those he didn’t very well. The Kings struggled mightily last game. I agree that Quick in game number 2 had some more challenging saves to make, but the Kings also relieved pressure more often in game 2 than they did in game 3. They leaned on Quick more in game 3 because they absolutely were outplayed for the vast majority f the game, even though they did manage to keep the Canucks to the perimeter often.

… If he had to make more challenging saves in game 2, which I do agree with by the way, wouldn’t it stand to reason the Kings leaned on him more in that game?

The Canucks had fewer than ten scoring chances in game 3. It was Quick’s easiest game, by a considerable margin actually. I don’t see the Kings allowing one-and-dones all night as “consistent pressure” on Quick. Usually, the Kings were able to break things up before any real pressure materialized.

Fine but the Kings spent more time in Vancouver’s zone in game 2 than they did in game 3. The one and done saves still need to be made, and he had to make a ton of them constantly throughout the game. Quick, and the defense in general, we’re not given the benefit of relief by the team playing much offense in game 3.

Anyway, we’re arguing about two sides of a shiny awesome coin. Quick has been on top of his game since game 1 An the team has been opportunistic but has yet to play up to its capabilities. Which is fucking awesome because it’s indicative of this team finally having turned a corner in learning how to win and closing out games.

… For what it’s worth (probably zip) I can’t tell you how proud I am of this team, and how happy I am that all of the elements seem to be working at the same time. And game 3 was like a recap of the season – Kings didn’t look all that impressive early or halfway through, and the team bent, but didn’t break … in the third, just as they did during the stretch drive, the Kings kicked ass.

I thought the most challenging saves came in game 3. In game 3, the pressure was consistent, as you write, but there were a few saves that were highlight reel. Also, Quick’s rebound control was sharper in game 3 as was his ability to deflect shots to the outside that would otherwise cause bad rebounds. In other words, Quick’s “puck control” was outstanding and made the D’s job easier. I am sure Vancouver would want more shots from the dots, slot and hash-mark but that’s not a luxury too many teams get against the Kings because we are so defensively sound (knock wood) and Quick is clearly the benefactor of that. That is why it is rarely “all Quick” or “all defense” but a combination. When I take that combination from Monday, Quick stole that game because without his exceptional play, we don’t win that game and may have had our ass handed to us.

Also, regarding the scoring chance, what stats don’t tell you is the quality of the save. A scoring chance is a true-false scenario. It either was a scoring chance or it was not. A shot from the slot with traffic that results in an outstanding glove save versus a shot from the slot with no traffic where the forward puts it in the goalie’s crest are both scoring chances. I could be wrong (not the first time) but “scoring chances” are not governed by the quality of the save but the place from where the shot came and I believe it is a subjective analysis based on what is arguably objective criteria.

… Anyone who complies scoring chances and/or uses them in game analysis is automatically aware of the points you covered in your comment. Of course there’s a degree of subjectivity to chances, and of course they’re not a perfect statistic. There ARE no perfect stats, except for wins, losses, goals for, and goals against. This is why those of us who use these numbers also watch the game, not only to gain perspective to go along with the numbers but also to compile those numbers in the first place.

“Quick stole that game because without his exceptional play, we don’t win that game and may have had our ass handed to us.”

… Disagree totally. If the Kings had gotten their asses handed to them, that would have been a result of terrible goaltending.

Quick made a really nice save on Burrows at the end of the 1st. It was a low shot, didn’t leave the ice, but Quick still had to get over there in time to stop it.

Quick’s best save was on Hansen at the top of the slot in the 3rd, about 5 1/2 in.

Quick also made a nice save on Booth with about five minutes to go in the 2nd, as he was dealing with some traffic around him.

That’s pretty much it. If you can tell me about some other tough saves he had to make, feel free. Almost every shot Vancouver took was anywhere from an easy to moderately difficult save for a goalie of NHL caliber. There was shot after shot from either a sharp angle or from the point and un-screened. Schneider made more difficult saves in game 3 than did Quick.

Quick gets full credit for the shutout, as I said earlier. I’m happy the Kings won the game. But I don’t need to pretend that the Kings were outplayed in the game or that Quick somehow stole it. He plainly didn’t.

the point Bobby is making that you are missing is that alot of those chances were one and dones BECUASE Quick either directed the rebound away from trouble or gobbled it up. That takes high caliber goaltending. The shot itself may seem easy to keep from going into the net, but directing those incessant shots away from danger or hanging on to them isn’t something you can just overlook.

Sure it is. It is easy to overlook them. It’s just as easy to create straw-men, respond to arguments the other person did not make, make shit up, pretend you are citing indisputable facts when, really, it’s an opinion and then insult because of one of (a) arrogance (b) insecurity or (c) a general assholish nature. Do you know what else is easy? Not taking the bait.

… Hahaha, whatever you say. I gave you facts, not bait. You accuse me of insulting you when you’re the one handing the insults out. And, for making things up, I can’t really compare to your expertise in that category.

If you can’t hang, that’s cool. If you can’t even address me or the points I’ve made and instead want to run off crying to someone else, that’s your choice. It’s a bit surprising because I never figured you’d be selling wolf tickets all this time, but I’ve never said I can’t be surprised now and then.

This would be a good example of what I referred to. I used to think you did it for fun, you know the instigating, etc., part of a twisted but interesting sense of humor. Recently, I realized it is far worse than that. The fact is JT, you are incapable of having a dialogue on this site and if you truly cannot see how statements like, “I’m happy the Kings won the game. But I don’t need to pretend that the Kings were outplayed in the game or that Quick somehow stole it. He plainly didn’t” as a bait driven insult, then your mind is gone. It’s why you have alienated so many people here and elsewhere. So, what you call not being able to “hang” is really me shaking my head as I walk away because you have become irrelevant to me as a fan or someone with whom I would ever care to discuss hockey.

Doughty on Sutter during 2nd intermission – ‘I really expected him to come in and lay into us. Instead he was VERY positive.‘

I thought that was awesome. Full marks for Sutter on that. He was exactly how I would have been; game 3’s tied going into the third, team’s up 2-0 in the series – no need for anger or negativity there.

Anyone know about holloways situation in sweden? im pretty sure saik is down in their series 3-1 with a game today, and i think itd be cool if he was somehow available to the kings if saik loses today…

Holloway is unavailable. He was never signed by the Kings, but they still own his RFA rights. Same with Moller. They are still restricted free agents. They both needed to be signed before December to be allowed to play this season in the NHL.

I really cannot foresee any King taking a dive, because, if by chance, I would expect Brown, Richards, and Green kicking his ass to the rafters. Knowing the current King roster, I cannot think of anyone where diving is an option or temptation.

By the way, for you King fans that are parents, there is a new summertime slip and slide water game out that you can buy for your kids:

Opening night @ Staples Center the first year they had flames right by the bench when the Kings were coming off the bench, Jamie Storr tripped over the opening in the bench and fell. Too much smoke and bright glare I assumed.